Re: From syntactic to interpreted triple

On onsdag 10 februari 2021 kl. 19:21:25 CET James Anderson wrote:
> > On 2021-02-10, at 18:32:39, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > As far as I know, "proposed semantics" includes more than just PRs.   But
> > there is even a PR with a different semantics - 88.  But there are as
> > well several semantics that have been proposed in the mailing list.
> > 
> > You appear to be postulating that RDF* semantics includes SPARQL*
> > construct queries.  As far as I am concerned that's out of RDF* bounds.
>
> the example continues a thread which was in response to my request for the
> operations which one could perform on a sparql/graph-store endpoint to
> produce results which correspond to the “semantics".
> 
> i understood them to be intended to be illustrative only.

Yes correct.

I used a SPARQL* construct query because it does have a well-defined 
(evaluation) semantics, and I didn't mean to suggest that such queries are 
included in the RDF* semantics. In fact, that query was not even meant as a 
means to define the RDF* semantics. In contrast, I used it as a means to 
define the semantics of a specific property (ex:statedBy) for the case in 
which that property is used in RDF* triples (assuming the semantics of RDF* 
itself is defined by other means, e.g., as done in PR 81).

Best,
Olaf

Received on Wednesday, 10 February 2021 19:27:04 UTC